Politicspolitics

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 12:38 PM

Uranium One raid...Mueller is involved...

Read paragraph three. The former marine and "registered republican," is in deep with the Clinton mess.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/29/fbi-whistleblower-clinton-uranium/

Now I have lost all faith in Mueller's impartiality and interest in justice.

113 replies, 1257 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 113 replies Author Time Post
Reply Uranium One raid...Mueller is involved... (Original post)
GoldwatersSoul Nov 30 OP
Gunslinger201 Nov 30 #1
GoldwatersSoul Nov 30 #4
quad489 Nov 30 #2
GoldwatersSoul Nov 30 #5
D26-15 Nov 30 #3
rahtruelies Nov 30 #6
GoldwatersSoul Nov 30 #7
Charlie Mike Nov 30 #8
GoldwatersSoul Nov 30 #9
Gamle-ged Nov 30 #10
GoldwatersSoul Nov 30 #11
jh4freedom Nov 30 #12
GoldwatersSoul Nov 30 #13
jh4freedom Nov 30 #14
GoldwatersSoul Nov 30 #15
Doctor_R Nov 30 #17
jh4freedom Dec 4 #31
Trevor Nov 30 #16
GoldwatersSoul Dec 3 #20
Trevor Dec 3 #22
Nostrings Dec 4 #23
Trevor Dec 4 #27
GoldwatersSoul Dec 4 #30
Hamer555 Dec 4 #32
Nostrings Dec 4 #33
Hamer555 Dec 4 #37
Nostrings Dec 4 #42
Hamer555 Dec 4 #43
Nostrings Dec 4 #45
Hamer555 Dec 4 #49
Nostrings Dec 4 #53
Hamer555 Dec 4 #56
Nostrings Dec 4 #59
Hamer555 Dec 4 #61
Trevor Dec 4 #68
Nostrings Dec 4 #35
Trevor Dec 4 #69
Nostrings Dec 4 #70
Trevor Dec 4 #71
Nostrings Dec 4 #74
Trevor Dec 4 #75
Nostrings Dec 4 #77
Trevor Dec 4 #81
Nostrings Dec 4 #83
Trevor Dec 5 #93
Nostrings Dec 6 #96
Trevor Dec 6 #100
Nostrings Dec 6 #102
Trevor Dec 6 #103
Nostrings Dec 7 #104
Trevor Dec 7 #107
Nostrings Dec 8 #113
GoldwatersSoul Dec 4 #24
Trevor Dec 4 #28
GoldwatersSoul Dec 4 #29
Trevor Dec 4 #72
Nostrings Dec 4 #80
Trevor Dec 4 #82
Nostrings Dec 4 #84
Trevor Dec 5 #91
Nostrings Dec 6 #95
Trevor Dec 6 #101
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #86
Trevor Dec 5 #92
GoldwatersSoul Dec 6 #98
Trevor Dec 6 #99
GoldwatersSoul Dec 7 #105
Trevor Dec 7 #106
GoldwatersSoul Dec 7 #108
Trevor Dec 7 #109
GoldwatersSoul Dec 8 #110
Trevor Dec 8 #111
GoldwatersSoul Dec 8 #112
Hamer555 Dec 4 #39
GoldwatersSoul Dec 4 #46
Hamer555 Dec 4 #48
GoldwatersSoul Dec 4 #51
Hamer555 Dec 4 #55
GoldwatersSoul Dec 4 #57
Hamer555 Dec 4 #60
Nostrings Dec 4 #64
Hamer555 Dec 4 #65
Nostrings Dec 4 #66
Hamer555 Dec 4 #67
Nostrings Dec 4 #73
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #89
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #87
Hamer555 Dec 5 #88
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #90
jh4freedom Dec 4 #34
Nostrings Dec 4 #38
Hamer555 Dec 4 #40
Nostrings Dec 4 #44
Hamer555 Dec 4 #47
Nostrings Dec 4 #52
Hamer555 Dec 4 #58
Nostrings Dec 4 #62
Nostrings Dec 4 #63
jh4freedom Dec 4 #76
Nostrings Dec 4 #79
jh4freedom Dec 5 #94
Nostrings Dec 6 #97
PrescientWon. Nov 30 #18
shogun Nov 30 #19
GoldwatersSoul Dec 3 #21
jh4freedom Dec 4 #36
GoldwatersSoul Dec 4 #50
jh4freedom Dec 4 #78
GoldwatersSoul Dec 5 #85
Boston Dec 4 #25
GoldwatersSoul Dec 4 #26
Squeek Dec 4 #41
GoldwatersSoul Dec 4 #54

Response to GoldwatersSoul (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 12:40 PM

1. Trump is the Victim not the perpetrator

And it’s all coming out now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 12:49 PM

4. I cant stand investigations...

And it pisses me off when they use them for a power grab.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 12:44 PM

2. Nothing to see here....just the swamp protecting its own....move along...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 12:50 PM

5. We need to pave the swamp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 12:46 PM

3. Dayum!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 12:55 PM

6. some more swamp FBI need termination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 12:59 PM

7. Yeah...

let them form a bowling team with Comey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 01:15 PM

8. Evidence search and destroy mission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 01:23 PM

9. And discredit the whistleblower.

if possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 01:43 PM

10. Critical parts...

The Justice Department’s inspector general was informed that the documents show that federal officials failed to investigate potential criminal activity regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian company that purchased Uranium One, a document reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation alleges.

The delivered documents also show that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller failed to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct pertaining to Rosatom and to other Russian government entities attached to Uranium One, the document reviewed by TheDCNF alleges. Mueller is now the special counsel investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 02:43 PM

11. Conflict...of...interest....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 04:37 PM

12. I'm just glad Mueller is a Republican creation

He was appointed to his first government job by Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush hired him as FBI Director (and Obama reappointed him for two years) and Jeff Sessions' Justice Department hired him as Special Counsel.
If Mueller had been a Democratic Party creation the Republicans would still control the House because there would have been such an uproar.
Thank God its a Republican Senator (Jeff Flake) who's leading the Mueller Protection bill fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 04:43 PM

13. Yeah parties suck ass.

Republican creation
He was appointed to his first government job by Ronald Reagan.

Reagan also appointed Sandra Day OConnor. She was disappointing as well.

George W. Bush hired him as FBI Director (and Obama reappointed him for two years) and Jeff Sessions' Justice Department hired him as Special Counsel.

Both Sessions and Bush were douchebags.

If Mueller had been a Democratic Party creation the Republicans would still control the House because there would have been such an uproar.
Thank God its a Republican Senator (Jeff Flake) who's leading the Mueller Protection bill fight.

OK???? Would you welcome an investigation in to the numerous questions about heroes of the political left???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 04:56 PM

14. I'm for investigating anybody and everybody who has the appearance of impropriety

But investigations are expensive.

For example, Bill and Hillary Clinton were under investigation by three Special Counsels, Robert Fiske, Ken Starr and Robert Ray, from January, 1994 until March, 2002. The cost is estimated at more than $100 million over those 8 years and what we got was Hillary Clinton cleared and Bill Clinton's Arkansas Law License suspended for 5 years when he no longer lived or practiced law in Arkansas and a $25,000 contempt of court fine for lying to a Grand Jury about having had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 05:34 PM

15. Hillary wasnt exactly cleared....

but lets not niggle. The reality is the Democrats have used investigations and the courts as a cudgel since they relinquished all fealty to virtue during Whitewater. The GOP used it on Clinton. Here we are. Republican president. The democrats dust off the old tricks. Reagan suffered the same. They tried with Bush II. I think they would have gone after Bush I had he won reelection.

Investigations are the tool of tyrants to beat down opposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 10:31 PM

17. There is gonna be LOTS to investigate soon:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:27 PM

31. Hillary was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing in the Whitewater Investigation

is what I meant, no criminal charges filed, no indictment, no trial. For the eight years of Whitewater investigations it was the Republicans who demanded the appointment of an Independent Counsel. So I guess you would have preferred Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno investigate her own boss?

From 2002 "Whitewater Probe Clears Clintons of Criminal Wrongdoing"
Independent counsel Robert Ray today filed his long-awaited report on the Whitewater investigation, clearing President Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton of any criminal wrongdoing.

The official report, sent by Ray to a three-judge panel, is not expected to be finalized for several weeks. But Ray released a six-page statement today that concludes neither the president nor Mrs. Clinton intentionally violated the law in the botched Whitewater real estate deal.

“This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct,” the statement says.

Democrats had been bracing for Ray to take a parting shot at Mrs. Clinton, who is locked in a tough fight with Rep. Rick Lazio for New York’s open Senate seat with the Nov. 7 general election looming.

But Ray’s statement was only mildly critical of the White House.

“This office experienced delay caused by the White House and others involving the production of relevant evidence and the filing of legal claims that were ultimately rejected by the courts,” Ray writes.

Ray also notes he expects “to file a final report promptly” after an Oct. 27 hearing for former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, who is still appealing a conviction stemming from the inquiry.

But all the relevant parties named in the report are given the opportunity to vet the document before it is made public, meaning it may not be available before 2001.

Asked today about his findings, Ray would only say that the case was closed.

“I don’t intend any further comment on the investigation,” Ray said.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122883&page=1

The current Special Counsel investigation is 100% a Republican affair. Democrats were the minority party in both Houses of Congress and had no power to investigate anybody or anything. Robert Mueller was appointed to his position by the Trump administration's Justice Department under Jeff Sessions, a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 10:28 PM

16. Uranium One was debunked long ago

So this latest tale must be bullshit too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 3, 2018, 10:33 AM

20. What about it???

You have an FBI director who refuses to investigate the political elite. Who is embroiled in an investigation of a lawfully elected president. His old cronies ignore federal law to confiscate evidence that said Directors hands were on???? Yeah nothing to see here because the ownership of strategic materials is nothing to worry about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 3, 2018, 11:39 PM

22. Why would anybody investigate a debunked conspiracy theory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 06:19 AM

23. If its being reinvestigated, and there is a whistleblower...

It's obviously not a 'debunked conspiracy theory'.


I get that that particular phrase is one of your favorites, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 03:57 PM

27. Its being witch hunted maybe

That's not the same as investigated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:20 PM

30. There is a designated whistleblower....

who gave the IG government evidence. That is not a witch. That is tangible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:29 PM

32. a whistleblower.....so, pretty much a flipper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:37 PM

33. Except that nobody tries to leverage a whistleblower other than to shut them up.

Quite the opposite of the leverage flippers are exposed to in an effort to get them to sing or compose.


In what kind of logic free mind are those two things are "pretty much" the same?


THAT is the real question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:46 PM

37. Its pretty obvious, isn't it......?

They are the same in that they are both claiming to have knowledge or evidence of something illegal, or at least something interesting or valuable to investigators.

And your assumption about how whistle blowers are treated is flawed. Many whistle blowers are looking for immunity because they have criminal exposure relative to the information they can provide.......just like a flipper.

Any other questions?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:57 PM

42. Yes, its obvious, they're pretty much the same if you ignore all relevant differences.



"And your assumption about how whistle blowers are treated is flawed. Many whistle blowers are looking for immunity because they have criminal exposure relative to the information they can provide.......just like a flipper."

Incorrect. Its getting to be a habit with you, do better.

The relationship of a flipper to leverage, versus the relationship of a whistleblower to leverage are COMPLETELY opposite.

With the flipper the leverage is in opposition to silence, in an effort to prevent that silence. Absent leverage, the silence would prevail. The flipper doesn't flip without compulsion.

With the whistleblower, the leverage is in opposition to speaking, and is employed to prevent that speaking. No leverage is necessary to compel the speaking, since the whistleblower by definition is already doing it without compulsion.


"Any other questions?"

Sure. How far below 90 is your IQ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:00 PM

43. Now explain how it works when a whislte blower has criminal exposure......

LOL.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:05 PM

45. Like IF they have protection, but are raided anyway, like bobby-no-case and his thugs did?

Maybe YOU should explain that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:13 PM

49. Whistleblower protection is to stop retaliation. It does not address criminal exposure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:25 PM

53. Bobby-no-case may have been retaliating.

"Criminal exposure" sure would be a convenient cover, and the dumbest among us would even buy it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:29 PM

56. I bet Manafort laughs the most at the bobby -no-case nickname.....right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:33 PM

59. When does his Presidential term end?



Bobby-no-case has nothing remotely close to the core of the mission he was officially CHARGED ( ) with accomplishing:

Russian interference and collusion with the Trump campaign.

Bobeeeee-nooo-caseeee.

Sound it out, you can get it right.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #59)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:37 PM

61. I am actually not in the know on what he has, but I'm going to wait and see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 07:47 PM

68. You only have right wing media's word for all that.

We don't know he's a whistle blower and we don't know if he gave actual evidence. If he exists he's probably some kook because Uranium One has been debunked. This is the second time the GOP went after a Uranium One whistle blower hoax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:41 PM

35. A whistleblower is more than mueller began with

If the investigation with a whistleblower - A WITNESS making an original charge - is a witch hunt...

The mueller investigation without one is what, trevor?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 07:49 PM

69. Probably not a witness to anything

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 07:55 PM

70. Look at yourself: Reduced to a "probably", which you base on nothing of substance...

Along with all your hopes.

I almost feel bad for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 08:00 PM

71. Its something and its definite

Uranium One is a hoax. Anything that claims to be evidence for Uranium One must also be a hoax. Why this isn't true remains to be seen but it definitely isn't. My hopes? I'm not on the side that's been praying at the debunked Uranium One alter for years now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 08:09 PM

74. You seem to be under the impression, trevor, that simply saying the word 'hoax' or 'debunked'...

Automatically makes whatever you're applying it to actually BE a hoax or debunked.

Reality does not work that way.

And besides that, your useage of the word probably betrays your claim that its a hoax, and acknowledges other possibilities...whether you admit it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #74)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 08:26 PM

75. Same games from you.

I give you precise proof of things and you then claim all I'm giving you is my opinion. I know reality. You on the other hand deny it when its right there in front of you. Do you have a factual point to make or just games and insults again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #75)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 09:19 PM

77. Incorrect.

"I give you precise proof of things and you then claim all I'm giving you is my opinion."

No. You give things which you BELIEVE and CLAIM are precise proof of things.

"I know reality."

No, trevor. YOU DO NOT. You KNOW the leftist bubble, and its preferred take on most things, which you quite reliably mirror.

"You on the other hand deny it when its right there in front of you."

YOU are the one here, denying it right now.



"Do you have a factual point to make..."


A whistleblower is talking to and cooperating with a federal prosecutor on an issue you call debunked and a hoax. IF it was debunked AND a hoax, there would be no whistleblower talking, nor would there be a federal prosecutor listening.

Theres REALITY starring you right in the face trevor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 09:46 PM

81. If I tell you 1 + 2 equals 3 its not just because I believe its true.

Its true. As also is a Supreme Court opinion proof of what the law is. But you shut your eyes. Yet you are eager to believe right wing nonsense.

What federal prosecutor believes your latest dream guy? From what your side is saying the FBI raided your guy so the Justice Department must not believe him very much. In fact they must suspect him of a crime, if he really was raided. So your point isn't factual after all. At least it was something other than a game or an insult though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #81)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 10:13 PM

83. Yes, but when you label 6 as your 1, and 5 as your 2, the answer is 11, even though you insist its 3

"As also is a Supreme Court opinion proof of what the law is."

It doesn't work the way you think it does, and IF it did, you'd be able to explain it in your own words instead of pointing somewhere and insisting that what your pointing to is proof, WITHOUT being able to explain it yourself.


"Yet you are eager to believe right wing nonsense. "

Incorrect. I've spent literally decades watching the left wing lie, obfuscate, imply, impugn, misrepresent, mischaracterize, and generally just misbehave.

UNLIKE you, I am immune to being sucked in by that nonsense.



"What federal prosecutor believes your latest dream guy?"

Does the name John Huber mean anything to you?



"From what your side is saying the FBI raided your guy so the Justice Department must not believe him very much."


Here comes the part where you demonstrate for the class just how little you actually know about this AND (bonus) just how much you're willing to run your mouth in spite of it.

Observe, Class:


"From what your side is saying the FBI raided your guy so the Justice Department must not believe him very much."

Poor trevor doesn't realize that there is more than one whistleblower in play. Indeed, poor trevor thinks that the whistleblower that was raided is the same whistleblower that is talking to Hubers people.

Isn't it a hoot watching trevor show his ass, Class?


"In fact they must suspect him of a crime, if he really was raided. So your point isn't factual after all."


Tell the class more about things you clearly do not understand, and subject matter which you are so totally ignorant of.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #83)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 07:33 PM

93. Supreme Court opinions are the law

If you don't believe that you are very lost. I cut and pasted the exact words so you could see for yourself. That's proof. If I just told you what it said it wouldn't satisfy you because you wouldn't believe me. Unfortunately, you can't accept facts when they are right in front of you.

You still believe intent isn't a required element for a prosecution under the law you want Hillary charged with. So you sure aren't immune to RW bullshit. I've seen you bite on plenty of other nonsense too. Its a shame because it makes you so angry and hateful.

Where does it say Huber believes this guy? If he does then why was there a raid? The RW propaganda is that the "whistleblower" was talking to the Inspector General. Isn't Huber some guy the AG hired on to look at stuff like Hillary? He's not the inspector general.

I'm only following one whistleblower right now. Do you have a link for another one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 03:31 AM

96. Perhaps, but your characterizations of them are not.

"If you don't believe that you are very lost. "

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the subject matter before you attempt to ding me, trevor.

"You still believe intent isn't a required element for a prosecution under the law you want Hillary charged with. "

And you still think that intentionally negligent is a thing.



"I've seen you bite on plenty of other nonsense too. "

YOU are not able to judge accurately what is and is not nonsense, as your posting history would indicate to anyone that cares to look at it.


"Where does it say Huber believes this guy? If he does then why was there a raid? The RW propaganda is that the "whistleblower" was talking to the Inspector General. Isn't Huber some guy the AG hired on to look at stuff like Hillary? He's not the inspector general."

Wow, even with the hints I gave you, you still don't get it.

I think you're either drunk, or your reading comprehension is at the bottom of a frozen lake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #96)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 04:34 PM

100. I get plenty

If I was so wrong you could sent me a link and tell me why I'm wrong. Instead all you can do is insult. Insulting is a loser tactic.

"To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the MENTAL STATE involved in criminal negligence. "

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-negligence/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #100)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 11:21 PM

102. Sigh.

"If I was so wrong you could sent me a link and tell me why I'm wrong."

I can't help it if you can't read. I posted some info, trevor, and then you posted asking questions that you would not ask had you read it.

Thats why I said you were either drunk or your reading comprehension was at the bottom of a frozen lake.

I'm not going to spoonfeed you beyond that. YOU figure it out.

""To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the MENTAL STATE involved in criminal negligence."

The very next sentence says "Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person."

Clintons mental state was clear, the deviation WAS a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person.



Next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #102)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 11:41 PM

103. You don't follow up on your posts

Because you have nothing in the first place.

Now you are saying Clinton had intent. That's an improvement over your amusement over the truth about intent / criminal negligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #103)

Fri Dec 7, 2018, 12:38 AM

104. Mental state and intent are two different things.

And besides, you're wrong either way, in the end.

"You don't follow up on your posts. Because you have nothing in the first place."

Incorrect. I gave you a thread to pull, and you either ignored it or missed it.

That isn't on me, thats on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #104)

Fri Dec 7, 2018, 05:31 PM

107. Mental state and intent

Mens Rea Law and Legal Definition

Mens rea is a Latin term meaning "guilty mind". It refers to the criminal INTENT that is necessary as an element to be proven in a crime. Many civil law claims also include some level of mens rea as a required element.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mens-rea/

I reviewed much of our thread but I don't see where you shared who the other whistleblower is. I found that myself though. It doesn't involve Uranium One.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #107)

Sat Dec 8, 2018, 10:45 AM

113. Mens Rea can not be required for negligence, otherwise only deliberate negligence would be criminal.

That's why the actual wording of the law says mental state not "mens rea".

Just put the goalposts back when you're finished, trevor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 08:54 AM

24. The raid...

was intended for the government to acquire the documents that this mab used to sound the alarm. He was supposed to have whistle blower protection.

This is not a conspiracy theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:00 PM

28. We don't know how much of that to believe

or what the whole story is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:07 PM

29. Yeah....

the guy probably had some guns like they did at Waco.

They are keeping all the seized documents under seal. If the public doea not know they cant pitch a fit. Ehy are liberals ok with tyranny?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 08:03 PM

72. If there was tyranny I'd disapprove of it.

I doubt there is any here though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 09:37 PM

80. The mueller investigation IS that tyrany, and you approve.

It is an investigation ginned up without an original crime, run by anti-Trump partisans, looking for individuals from within a pool of pro-Trump folks to accuse.

Thats about as close to tyrany as you can get without bloodshed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #80)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 09:49 PM

82. Its nothing compared to what Ken Starr pulled off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 10:15 PM

84. BULLSHIT. THAT investigation began with the assertion of crime by a witness.

The mueller farce has no such legitimizing characteristics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #84)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 06:57 PM

91. No crime was alleged at the outset of Whitewater.

We don't know what led to Mueller's appointment. Its secret.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #91)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 03:23 AM

95. Incorrect, trevor.

"David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November 1993 that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal."

January 1994
Attorney General Janet Reno names New York lawyer and former U.S. attorney Robert B. Fiske Jr. as special counsel to investigate the Clintons' involvement in Whitewater. Fiske announces he will also explore a potential link between Foster's suicide and his intimate knowledge of the developing Whitewater scandal.


Admit it. You were wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #95)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 05:20 PM

101. OK if you want to call that Whitewater

December 1993
The White House agrees to turn over Whitewater documents to the Justice Department, which had been preparing to subpoena them. These documents include files found in Foster's office.

January 1994
Attorney General Janet Reno names New York lawyer and former U.S. attorney Robert B. Fiske Jr. as special counsel to investigate the Clintons' involvement in Whitewater. Fiske announces he will also explore a potential link between Foster's suicide and his intimate knowledge of the developing Whitewater scandal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 09:10 AM

86. Two years...

if investigation. That is tyranny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 06:59 PM

92. Compared to others that's short.

How long did Republicans go after Clinton for? How long on Benghazi?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 09:39 AM

98. A little different...

First there was evidence of a crime with Hillary's servers. She had a history of caching ingormation and keeping it away from the general public and she lawyered up immediately when it was learned she did so. Everythig became a laborious task of subpoenas appeals and discovery giving her lawyers time to destroy evidence.

Benghazi probably wasnt directly her fault. Just a general fuck-up by Obama's rush to war and subsequent rush to peace once he made war. She was Secretary of State an did not protect her Ambassador in a hostile place. And since she was appointed and had no real interest in the job she did the work of the position at her leisure not by devotion. When the embassy was attacked she was unconcerned until she had plenty of sleep and a coffee in the morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #98)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 04:13 PM

99. I was talking about Whitewater.

I think the investigation into Hillary's E-mails was finished in an acceptable time frame.

Her lawyers did not destroy any evidence. As far as I know she cooperated 100% with the investigation. At least she didn't go on Twitter every day trying to create an uproar against the investigators unlike somebody else we know. I think your statement about Hillary waiting for sleep and coffee has been debunked too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #99)

Fri Dec 7, 2018, 09:54 AM

105. Hillary's problems...

The email question was a shoddy investigation to make it look like they made an effort.

You didnt hear about the deletion of 30000 emails that her lawyers decided shouldnt be part of the investigation??? Tell me what other investigation have you heard of where the accused gets to decide on the evidence they want to offer is. That is funny shit.

I dont cae what Trump does on Twitter. I am not a Trump voter.

Hillary fucked up in Benghazi. She was power hungry and being Secretary of State meant she stayed in government till Obama was out. She didnt want the job and she wiped her ass with those she put in harms way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #105)

Fri Dec 7, 2018, 05:13 PM

106. The E-mail investigation went on for over a year.

It was very thorough. There is a report from it on the web. Read it and see all the things they looked into.

The E-mail deletions took place months before the investigation began. The State Department realized they needed all her work E-mails for their records and they sent her a request. That's when Hillary says she turned in all the work stuff and deleted the personal stuff. She wasn't deciding anything about evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #106)

Fri Dec 7, 2018, 07:23 PM

108. No. No it wasnt....

Dont be a fucking moron... Hillary is not worth falling on your sword. She deleted emails after receiving a subpoena and after getting legal counsel.

www.factcheck.org/2016/09/the-fbi-files-on-clintons-emails/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #108)

Fri Dec 7, 2018, 11:45 PM

109. Not as clear there as you are trying to make it.

Deletions occurred at two different times. One was after the records request from State. Hillary then deleted her personal E-mails. That was before the subpoena. There was another deletion incident that took place after the subpoena was issued. That was carried out by an employee of a contractor without the knowledge of Clinton or her staff. The FBI is convinced that is what happened. In the second incident the server was wiped. Your link says as much about the second incident.

Page 19

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary%20R.%20Clinton%20Part%2001%20of%2028/view

There is no sword to fall on. This is just a message board and I'm completely free to give my opinion, which I am doing honestly. I am not a moron. I think you should ask yourself it why, if what you are saying is true, and if it was it would be a serious violation of the law, why was she never charged with anything for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #109)

Sat Dec 8, 2018, 12:34 AM

110. You assert...

you are not a moron yet you equivocate and make excuses for someone that if you were their employer I would hope you would terminate.

She eliminated evidence. We eill never know what it might have been. That for any other citizen would be a felony.

She wasnt charged because the law enforcement in question was concerned that it iwas a political problem and that if she won the presidency that they would be punished. Simple stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #110)

Sat Dec 8, 2018, 10:22 AM

111. If I was her employer I would fire her.

That's falls under a different test than a prosecution. Your explanation for why she wasn't charged doesn't add up. If she was charged she wouldn't get elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #111)

Sat Dec 8, 2018, 10:26 AM

112. Elimination of evidence is a crime...

If she was charged she would have a defense which could drag on for years. In fact they would never hold a trial during the election. If she was elected it would simply go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:49 PM

39. Whistle blower protection.....you mean immunity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:08 PM

46. No...

I mean the laws that soecifically protect those who seek to point out illegal activities in government. There is a protocol and a collection of laws that protect such people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:12 PM

48. Those protection laws are for protection against retaliation - not criminal exposure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:21 PM

51. They didnt arrest this man...

nor did they seek evidence to arrest him. By all accounts they lifted the evidence he held. Do you meab to tell me you believe the actions of the FBI are not to be questioned?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:27 PM

55. They would have needed warrant. Signed by a judge. etc.

This warrant will indicate what they were allowed to look for.

I have no problem with questioning the FBI's actions. But you need to look at the whole process, and not just the FBI, as they do not act alone. If you believe the judge also messed up on this warrant, then by all means, have them all investigated.

But the judge is supposed to prevent an over reaching warrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #55)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:31 PM

57. Yikes....

do you know how often law enforcement seeks a warrant based on faulty or glorified evidence???

If the FBI sought a judge to get a warrant for stolen work papers they would have gotten it.

If they didnt get it from one they would shop til they got their outcome. Dont be naive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:34 PM

60. How often? Show me some data on how often. Show me some proof of how often.

If it is so common, it should be simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:46 PM

64. How often does it have to be before its wrong hamer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:49 PM

65. So, you guys have no idea how often it happens, and are just making shit up.....?

Or did you have some data or proof?

The question is not whether once is wrong enough or not. The question is - is the FBI getting shady warrants with no push back with ease and regularity, as claimed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:55 PM

66. Answer the question.

"The question is not whether once is wrong enough or not. "

Oh yes it is. Answer the question. How many times does it take before it is wrong?

As much or more proof exists that it happens, than of russian collusion with the Trump campaign, and theres a SC for that.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #66)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 06:02 PM

67. No, its not. Do you have proof that it happened in this case? If so, I will be happy to address it

But you don't. You are speculating.

Where is any proof about this shady warrant or proof of the regularity that the FBI enjoys relative to being granted shady warrants?

That is specifically what we are discussing.

Of course, Once is wrong, but once, in this case completely hypothetical as you have provided zero proof.

SO, yes, once is all it takes to be wrong, and probably illegal.....but you have to prove it. And you have no proof.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #67)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 08:05 PM

73. Yes, it really most certainly IS the question.

Last edited Tue Dec 4, 2018, 09:41 PM - Edit history (1)

All those words, all that song and dance, to finally be forced to mostly admit it:

"SO, yes, once is all it takes to be wrong, and probably illegal.....but you have to prove it."



"That is specifically what we are discussing. "

Incorrect again. That is what YOU are discussing, and you're trying to decide for me that I'm discussing that too.

The problem for you, is that in this subthread, my only argument has been " How often does it have to be before its wrong hamer?".

That was in post 64, my first response to you in this subthread, and that was the only sentence and sentiment which post 64 contained.


Read better.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 09:24 AM

89. Here is some low hanging fruit...

http://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2014/SCO/1104/130

www.insightnews.com/news/cases-being-dismissed-after-police-officer-lied-on-search-warrant/article_1e069bfe-ce51-11e8-a4fc-478af41ca88f.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 09:15 AM

87. It is why....

hundreds of cases have to be dropped each year. The cops convinced a judge there was something nefarious. He grants the warrant and in the end the cops find a little weed. The police have no corral on virtue and they will be dishonest if they think it means getting a bust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #87)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 09:17 AM

88. Any statistics on this? Any data or proof of your claims?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 09:27 AM

90. I posted it on another response...

I dont have the time to look at everything but what I am talking about ic real, common and only refutable by those who squeeze their eyes closed because the "law" is shitting on the rights of someone they want to see persecuted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:38 PM

34. However

It was the CURRENT FBI Director, appoined by President Trump, Christopher Wray, who approved the raids on Michael Cohen's office and Paul Manafort's residences. That was not Mueller or Comey.
Mueller was so well thought of as FBI Director that when his ten year appointment, begun under President George W. Bush was expired, President Obama asked the U.S. Senate to extend his term by two years. The vote to extend Mueller's term was 100-0.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:47 PM

38. So what? Mueller is a watchdog and fixer for the deep state.

The poster you were responding was talking about things that were or were not being done, by people that hold positions in government.

You continue to pivot to who they are as if it matters, instead of whether the charges are or are not true.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:53 PM

40. What are the charges? Are there any charges?

An investigation does not equal charges.

Are there any charges?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:02 PM

44. On a scale of mediocre to terrible, how well would you rank your reading comprehension skill?

Had you bothered to read and understand what you were responding to, you'd have traced the conversation back to where a poster said this:

"You have an FBI director who refuses to investigate the political elite. Who is embroiled in an investigation of a lawfully elected president. His old cronies ignore federal law to confiscate evidence that said Directors hands were on???? Yeah nothing to see here because the ownership of strategic materials is nothing to worry about.:"

Those are specific charges levelled by that poster, and those are what is being referred to.

Try and keep up next time instread of making yourself look dumb.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:09 PM

47. When discussing matters of law, which is what is being done here, the word charges -

Has a specific meaning. That meaning is not generally agreed to be stuff some dude posted on a discussion forum.

What you have in that post is speculation - not charges.

Are you charging me with bad reading skills? Or is that just some shit a dude on the internet said? See the difference?

You guys continue to talk about how much evidence there is of all of this criminal activity, but no one - including Trump will act on it. Makes it seem fishy as hell.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:22 PM

52. Excuse me, hamer, but *I* was not discussing matters of law*, and neither was that poster.

*per se.

That you couldn't figure out what context in which we were speaking, thats on you buddy.


"What you have in that post is speculation - not charges."

Again, *I* used the word charges. *I* brought the term into this subthread. *I* decide what I meant by it, and what context I was using it in. You didn't originally author it, *I* did. End of story.

For your edification, ignorant one:

Charges: an accusation


"Are you charging me with bad reading skills?"

I was, but you've done such a bang up job demonstrating bad and/or lazy reading skills, that its now past tense: Charged.


"Or is that just some shit a dude on the internet said? See the difference?"

Pick up a dictionary instead of trying to tussle with people who don't share your deficiencies.



"You guys continue to talk about how much evidence there is of all of this criminal activity..."

More evidence exists of it, than of anything "muh russia", speaking of fishy as hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:32 PM

58. Your first reply to me referred to federal law, mr reading champ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #58)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:37 PM

62. Which reply is it that you think is my first reply to you?

Link it up, because I'm 99.9 percent sure you're wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #58)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:40 PM

63. My first reply to you in this thread says...

33. Except that nobody tries to leverage a whistleblower other than to shut them up.

Quite the opposite of the leverage flippers are exposed to in an effort to get them to sing or compose.


In what kind of logic free mind are those two things are "pretty much" the same?


THAT is the real question.


I see no discussion of federal law there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 09:14 PM

76. You don't seem to understand

That a prosecutor's job is not to determine whether charges are true or not. That is the job first of a grand jury; is there enough evidence there for sixteen to twenty-one average citizens to issue indictments. Then if indictments are issued its up to judge and/or jury to determine guilt or innocence. That's not Mueller's job.
Since quite a few people have PLEADED GUILTY, the charges being true or not was determined by their pleas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 09:27 PM

79. Incorrect.

"That a prosecutor's job is not to determine whether charges are true or not."

I'd argue that prosecuting a known unguilty crosses ethical lines and that it IS a prosecutors JOB not to prosecute a case where they know the prosecuted individual is not actually guilty.

Do you disagree?



"Since quite a few people have PLEADED GUILTY, the charges being true or not was determined by their pleas."

Also incorrect. If you plead guilty to being a volkswagen, you don't actually BECOME a volkswagen.


A plea no more determines whether you actually COMMITTED a crime, than a magic 8 ball.

You seem to have trouble differentiating between "reality" and "in the eyes of the state".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 08:29 PM

94. Mueller hasn't prosecuted any "non-guilty" persons

A grand jury will refuse to indict a "non-guilty" person. For example, in Ferguson, MO.: "After sitting through hours of testimony and reading through thousands of pages of documents, a grand jury decided that there was not enough probable cause to indict police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old."

Mueller has entered into plea bargains or he got jury convictions for everyone he has prosecuted thus far. Two Grand Juries have issued indictments for other people and organizations that Mueller has not yet prosecuted.
A plea arrangement means that the individual is admitting guilt.
If an individual believes that they are not guilty, don't enter a guilty plea to a lesser charge. A plea bargain means that you have to cooperate with the prosecutor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #94)

Thu Dec 6, 2018, 03:37 AM

97. In your opinion.

"A grand jury will refuse to indict a "non-guilty" person."

Again, in your opinion. Have you ever sat on a grand jury, smart guy? Are you aware of the difference between a grand jury on paper, and in practice?

The old "ham sandwich" saw didn't just make itself up.


As to the rest, almost NOTHING means what you claim it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 11:35 PM

18. won't read this story at the DUmp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 11:42 PM

19. If the uranium one deal was as scandalous as some say, and Mueller was involved in it

He would be the perfect prosecutor to make sure an opposition administration never got the chance to investigate it. Skin in the game. Being a "Republican" is even better. He could find things about a president's last that might be a bargaining chip down the road if need be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shogun (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 3, 2018, 10:35 AM

21. Indeed...

I often wonder if the party registration is simply a scam. Ad the FBI is non-political and COMPLETELY non-partisan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:42 PM

36. The first President to appoint Mueller

To a federal government position (U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts) was Ronald Reagan. That was in 1986.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:18 PM

50. And???

Reagan also nominated Sandra Day O'Connor. How did that work out for Reagan?? Nixon appointed Eliot Richardson to Attorney General who subsequently named a Special Prosecutor. What is your point???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 09:21 PM

78. And.............just because you don't like some Republicans

Doesn't mean that they aren't Republicans nonetheless. There is no way on earth that the Republican majority on the Senate Intelligence Committee would be making criminal referrals to Robert Mueller for him to prosecute if he was a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 09:08 AM

85. Then you didnt get the message....

Eliot Richardson was a Republican. Second I dont give a shit for parties at all. I am a Libertarian. However, the problem in Washington is an effort to protect the fraternity....not individual republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 08:58 AM

25. Just more confirmation that DOJ and FBI are completely corrupt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 09:00 AM

26. Indeed...

The FBI was weaponized and enough people hired by one administration to create an environment of fealty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:54 PM

41. ummm....a little

late to the party guys...

this was floating around in 2017


and it's not as nefarious as tRumpies would like to believe

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-robert-mueller-uranium/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squeek (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:25 PM

54. Well....

it became relavent again this past week when they raided the whistleblowers house. You can stick snopes in yohr ass though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics